Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:01, 20 July 2016

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Warned)

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:51, 14 July 2016
2. 00:20, 15 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed:

...to where JFG edits the signature size -> 0.5:

...to where Dervorguilla restores it to 0.5:

...to where YoPienso restores it to 0.5:

Diff of attempt by JFG to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User Yopienso's edit was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more. User JFG did not offer any opinion on signature size, he/she only took the median between an inappropriately minuscule size based on bogus argument of "sexual equality", and the long-standing template:Infobox person default sig size. (That makes as much sense as "compromising" that I cannot fill up the gas tank of my Toyota, because a woman at another pump has a Volkswagon with a smaller tank size!) I cannot find any substantive contribution by User Dervorguilla in the Talk:Donald Trump thread, only shifting irrelevancies, disruptive mocking of the BLP subject and of me, and ongoing/never-ending off-topic posting. Plus his several reverts without cause or consensus to change the long-standing template default sig size, over the same time period. IHTS (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff of original talk page discussion just before 2 comments were silently deleted (by IHTS):

Dervorguilla (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 02:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Silently deleted"?? How about I was regretting being enticed by user Jack Upland into off-topic poor humor posts thickening an already too-long Talk thread. (More irrelevancies. Ghosts & goblins!) IHTS (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The OP continues to revert the long-standing sig size at the article even while this incident is open! (Amazing. At this point, I think it's clear, this incident was opened as part of a campaign to harass & intimidate.) IHTS (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt by YoPienso to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Link to where Dervorguilla restores YoPienso's revision:

Link to where IHTS reverts:

Dervorguilla (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 09:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User Dervorguilla's above presentation is a distortion of what occurred. This is what occurred:

1. my grossly mistaken markup
2. user Yopienso reverts my gross error
3. my misunderstanding of Yopienso's edit
4. the markup I originally intended

IHTS (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A correction to IHTS's interpretation of YoPienso's edit:

"User Yopienso's edit was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more..."

In his talk comment, YoPienso said his edit was aimed to restore the 110px size, not just correct the markup error:

"IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, 'No, read the Talk page; ... your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges).' I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My 'too big' means in relation to the rest of the infobox..."

Also, a general review of the signature-size history shows that IHTS has made 8 changes, Dervorguilla 4, YoPienso 1, and JFG 1:

170px (Connormah) -> 80px (D) -> 130px (I) -> 80px (D) -> 110px (J) -> 170px (I) -> 150px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 220px (I) -> 110px (Y) -> 220px (I) -> 150px (I) -> 170px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 170px (I).

In particular, IHTS appears to have made 4 changes within a three-hour span:

  23:51, 14 July 2016: 110px -> 220px

  00:20, 15 July 2016: 110px -> 220px

  00:22, 15 July 2016: 220px -> 150px

  02:56, 15 July 2016: 150px -> 170px

Also, a general review of the signature-size history shows that IHTS has made 7 changes, Dervorguilla 4, YoPienso 1, and JFG 1:

150px (Connormah) -> 80px (D) -> 130px (I) -> 80px (D) -> 110px (J) -> 170px (I) -> 150px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 220px (I) -> 110px (Y) -> 220px (I) -> 150px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 150px (I).

In particular, IHTS appears to have made 3 changes within a one-hour span:

  23:51, 14 July 2016: 110px -> 220px

  00:20, 15 July 2016: 110px -> 220px

  00:22, 15 July 2016: 220px -> 150px

Dervorguilla (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 11:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment – Irrespective of the irrelevant sexist or ad hominem arguments brought forward by those two editors in this WP:LAME edit war, I do feel that the "0.5" signature size looks appropriate given this infobox format and the shape of this particular signature. Now would an admin kindly send the kids home to cool down? — JFG 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"Kid" is an undeserved, unwarranted personal attack. And fuck you for it asshole. IHTS (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear IHTS: in my view, calling you guys "kids" is an affectionate way to point out playground-style quibbles over minor details. I love kids. Regardless, sorry for unwittingly offending you. On being called an asshole, I don't mind; we all have one. — JFG 07:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Playground-style"??? "Quibbles"??? Maybe that applies to the other editor, but not me, asshole. Go fuck yourself. IHTS (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Charming! — JFG 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

JFG: I'm not finding any actual "ad hominem arguments" at article talk. Both IHTS and I were directing our attacks at each other's claims rather than each other's character. But I do have to agree with you on the most important issue here: None of us (you, me, or YoPienso) can readily restore the 110px sig size without getting immediately reverted, by IHTS. I expect he would likely agree too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 05:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 15:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I've created an 'Apparent consensus' subsection at talk. It's not clear yet whether this is going to help resolve the dispute. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

What a joke. And all your reversions of the long-standing sig size have had no reasonable basis or rationale in discussion, changing from absurd "gender equality" argument, to repeating an apples-and-oranges argument comparing two different templates which provide two different available spaces for sig size. You clearly have shifting rationales supporting a POV behind all of your reverts and excessive unsubstantive additions to the Talk thread, not to mention the mocking of the BLP subject, and of me, with your offensive graphic and remark. You have a "grind them down" approach, including the opening of this EWN item, which even while open you continued reverting at the article. IHTS (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Categorically denied. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Warned There is a technical violation of the 1RR rule that's been applied to the Donald Trump page. However, I'm going to give the user in question the the benefit of the doubt that he made a mistake. Even so, IHTS's behavior on this page is not appropriate and I strongly advise you to adopt a calmer tone when engaging with other editors. After I post this, I will also formally notify you of DS in effect on the Donald Trump page. If there is further disruptive editing or a future 1RR violation, I will impose a block and consider a short-term topic ban on the offending parties. I ask all of you to relax. This is a very silly thing to have an argument about. If necessary, taking an evening off from WP might be in the best interest of everyone, then you can approach the situation with a cool head. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

___

As the reporting editor, I'd like to ask that the user in question be 'un-warned'. His editing wasn't particularly disruptive. Also, his contributions at article talk may well have been made with a "cooler head" than those of the sysop who's now contributing there at a faster pace than the two of us combined. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Jobas (Result: Declined)

Page: Forced conversion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Cambodian genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Here and Here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. A
6. B
7. C
8. D

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warning reverted by Xenophrenic as "humor"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Forced conversion - Three users object to Xenophrenic's Section Blanking on Talk Page
2. Cambodian genocide - Two users object to Xenophrenic's Category Removal on Talk Page

Comments:
User:Xenophrenic has been blocked a total of seven times thus far for edit warring. I've provided just two articles where User:Xenophrenic has been recently edit warring, despite the fact that User:EdJohnston, a sysop, recognized the fact that User:Xenophrenic been edit warring across several articles and offered to protect the pages (see this one for example, where User:Xenophrenic once again reverts User:Ad Orientem). Another user, User:LoveMonkey, who seemed frustrated with User:Xenophrenic's WP:IDHT attitude also felt the need to report User:Xenophrenic as seen here. With specific regard to the Forced conversion article, another editor who noticed the edit warring attempted to discuss the issue with User:Xenophrenic on the talk page but then User:Xenophrenic proceeded to revert them. On the Cambodian genocide article, User:Xenophrenic is reverted by User:TheTimesAreAChanging who, in their edit summary, noted "You sure revert quickly" and attempted to dialog with User:Xenophrenic to no avail, since User:Xenophrenic continued to hold to an IDHT attitude rather than acknowledging consensus and dropping the WP:STICK. How User:Xenophrenic has been able to get away with his WP:HOUNDING and WP:EDIT WARRING behaviour for so long is beyond me. Thanks for your consideration, Jobas (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I can't address Xenophrenic's longer term record, which may well be one of a great contributor. But the admittedly limited editing I have seen on their part strikes me as bold to the point of evincing an element of indifference, or even contempt for the opinions of other editors not in conformity with their own. As also a certain willingness to push the envelope in advancing their particular POV. I will leave it to others to parse the record and decide what, if anything, needs to be done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oh my. From looking at User:Xenophrenic's contributions, it seems that they have engaged in POV pushing across several articles, as well as Wikistalking. In light of their history of edit warring and sockpuppetry , User:Xenophrenic should be blocked for at least six months. A topic ban from all articles related to religion/atheism would be useful too. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• This is a duplicate of the complaint previously filed: HERE. I've left my comments regarding the matter there. Please ping me if any further clarification or information is needed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A complaint filed on an Administrator's Noticeboard is never a duplicate of a discussion on a user's talk page. It is generally the next step if one does not get resolution to the perceived problem. This needs to be addressed, formally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example and here and here of how Xenophrenic still try to push his POV into the articles. User:HighKing also seemed frustrated with User:Xenophrenic's WP:BRD and POV attitude. --Jobas (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I care very little about this particular case but I post here just to signal that I have come across edits by user Jobas that were clear POV pushing and strangely sourced like this edit. The only point of this new paragraph added by Jobas in the introduction (in an article that would have needed obvious improvement) seemed to have been to add a category that was a pet project of user Jobas. It doesn't excuse the possible mistakes of Xenophrenic but it put it in perspective. Note that Jobas also added a similar paragraph in the article Forced conversion, with the same factual errors, the same POV pushing and the same unreliable source... So, I think that he certainly shares a significant part of the blame here. Eleventh1 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's was my edit, These other edits are not added by me. And in the article Forced conversion I didn't add this paragraph what i did is reverted to latest version before our edit (14:08, 22 June 2016). and what i added was other paragraph with sources supported by Wessinger, Catherine, and Geoffrey Blainey. So I wish you could be more precise when you browse my edits. And as it seems here i'm not the only one who frustrated with User:Xenophrenic's POV attitude, regards.--Jobas (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Declined. The diffs provided do not indicate a 3RR violation, and a brief review of the past few days' history on both pages doesn't reveal any egregious edit warring. That is the only behavior analyzed at this noticeboard; if you believe someone is editing tendentiously, open a report at a different noticeboard. –Darkwind (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Pixie dust 777 reported by User:Samtar (Result: Blocked)

Page

Women in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pixie dust 777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC) "stop and explain on talk page. consensus is assumed on talk page of women in islam"
2. 02:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC) "reverted unexplained revision by Spike789"
3. 08:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "undid unexplained revision by spike 789"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Women in Islam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

Continuously removing a long standing referenced sentence and replacing with an unreferenced one. Multiple editors have attempted to explain this to the editor, but they ignore the message and continue to make these edits. -- samtar 13:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just posted on Talk:Women in Islam the apparent BBC linkage that Pixie dust has been posting about, to reference their statement that women slaves held in Islamic societies were permitted to own property - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml. While the BBC is considered a reliable source and this source does state under the "Slave rights" header that "Slaves may own property", in this case the BBC text does not clearly state that female slaves could own property. So while Pixie has made many reversions on the article over the past few days, it seems to me that they are not completely in the wrong about this issue. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That may be the case, but the inability of the editor to listen show's a worringly lack of competence. They are continuing to edit war over this. -- samtar 07:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. This is a fairly clear case of an editor ignoring consensus and continuing to revert despite attempts at discussion. On the article talk page, two different editors attempted to explain the problem with the edit in question, and Pixie dust 777 appears to have willfully ignored that advice. When combined with the fact that four different editors reverted Pixie dust 777 during the past 6 days this has been going on, and two different edit warring warnings were given, it's fairly clear that Pixie dust 777 does not intend to abide by the established consensus. –Darkwind (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Zbase4 reported by User:DePiep (Result: Stale)

Page: Template:Largest Israeli cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zbase4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Complaint: Zbase4 trespassed the WP:1RR rule on that page. I request the pre-this situation be restored.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (note: the page is under 1RR rule):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -- zero response or effect

The diff is wrt editor's talkpage. Article talkpage does not have any discussion whatsoever. That's the point: no talkpage conformation for this change. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

-DePiep (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Stale. This happened four days ago. Blocks are not punitive, and doubt you could make a successful case that there is ongoing disruption here worthy of a block. –Darkwind (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block. I'm asking for a revert into pre-sitiation. Darkwind -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@DePiep: This is not a content-related noticeboard, this is a behavior-related noticeboard, and no behavior-related actions are called for in this situation. If you have content concerns, take it to the template's talk page or to another discussion venue. –Darkwind (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the page title. I came here for 3RR (actually 1RR) trespassing, and all you admins can think of is block someone. Why not attitude 'solve something'? That's your pagename. (btw, earlier on, when it might be in time, I complained on the talkpage about bad reception here. ). All you admins only can think of is "block'm". -DePiep (talk)

And re "not a content-related noticeboard": I know. Just count the reverts. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:185.100.213.68 reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

185.100.213.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730337716 by DatGuy (talk)"
2. 11:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730337212 by DatGuy (talk)"
3. 10:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730322482 by 31.48.59.254 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User also has jumped accounts. User:185.100.213.77 and User:185.100.213.231 have also reverted to the exact same version. Finally, User:2a03:4a80:5:43b:43b:6564:19bc:9ba2 also wants the version of the 185.100.213.xxx IP. Pinging User:HkCaGu Dat Guy_Contribs 11:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours After full-protecting this article for 3 days, finding no discussion when the protection expired, and giving fair warning that the next editors to edit-war would receive a block, I am following up on that. Ritchie333 11:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xfpisher reported by User:hchc2009 (Result: Blocked)

Page: You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xfpisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The underling issue concerns a dispute between the editor and others about reliable sources. Albeit acting in good faith, they have been repeatedly adding in essentially the same material and reverting others for the last day or so. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

'Underling' issue? :) For the record, many of my 'reverts' have been changes to the original edit, in an effort to find something acceptable to the other editors. It is my understanding that IMDb can be used as a source in Misplaced Pages articles, in certain circumstances. I was upheld in this in a previous dispute, and was not aware of any change in the guidelines. The editor reverting me was refusing to discuss the matter, or offer any alternatives. If I simply reverted too many times in a given period, apologies. I'm not sure I did. I started the conversation on the article's talk page. I suggested a compromise, and the editor did not respond to me. The current edit (as of this moment) addresses some of the editor's complaints.Xfpisher (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Jpimentel201 reported by User:Nika de Hitch (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jpimentel201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/729254778
2. Special:Diff/729350627
3. Special:Diff/729774083
4. Special:Diff/729802496
5. Special:Diff/729946658
6. Special:Diff/730281141

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Alternatively, before going to DR, Jpimentel201 and Nika de Hitch could try having a discussion on the article's talk page instead of in edit summaries. –Darkwind (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please have this discussion on the talk page of the article, not on this noticeboard nor on my talk page. Thank you. –Darkwind (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:79.70.159.148 reported by User:Pianoman320 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Swift (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

79.70.159.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730394416 by Pianoman320 (talk) It may be standard, but it needs to be referenced. You cannot make it up."
2. 19:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730393221 by Pianoman320 (talk) Please, explain your revert"
3. 17:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Example code */ Appears to be trivia. And it is unreferenced."
4. 17:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730310505 by Pianoman320 (talk) Being short is not an excuse to blank a section. And the fact is in its context"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Swift (programming language). (TW)"
2. 20:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Swift (programming language). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP is repeatedly blanking an established, relevant section of the article (an "Examples" section on a programming language article). Seems to be retaliation for a sentence the IP added that was removed, once by myself and once by another editor. There are two IPs involved in the same range that appear to be the same editor.

I'm up against 3RR myself so I can't restore the section anymore. Note that the IP *is* correct about the section being unreferenced, but that should probably be addressed with a tag. Pianoman320 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, when deciding what to do about this. Also think about the section that Pianoman320 blanked. Think if it is OK, to prevent the neutrality of the article because the only negative section is too small. Also, Template:Citation needed is not meant to be used when there are no references, but as a warning that if no references are found the text will be removed. Please, allow neutrality in the article. 2.97.239.75 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected 2 days. –Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Beboj3140 reported by User:x4n6 (Result: Semi, Warnings)

Page: University of Oslo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beboj3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The is a relatively new, ST user, who persists in warring, despite warnings that were posted on the edit log and the user's talk page. What complicates this is that the same user also appears to be doing the same thing as IP 188.182.194.148 on this article: here, here and here; warring about the same sentence and section, within the same time frame; and using virtually identical language in the edit log. Therefore recommend block for both User:Beboj3140 acct and the IP 188.182.194.148 as well, as blocking this person on one without the other would likely be ineffective. X4n6 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Beboj3140 and User:X4n6 are both warned they may be blocked if they revert again without a prior consensus on the talk page. Surely this 'most prestigious' thing might be fixed by rewording or my pointing to the relevant source more clearly. I semiprotected the article two months due to attention from the mysterious IP. If the IP edits elsewhere a block for abusing multiple accounts might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Italia2006 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

List of Primeira Liga hat-tricks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Italia2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Reverting persistent vandalism"
2. 21:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730412127 by SLBedit (talk)"
3. 16:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Hat-tricks by club */ "F.C. Porto" is incorrect. Article name is FC Porto. There was a whole discussion on this at Talk:FC Porto"
4. 13:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Hat-tricks by club */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out on List of Primeira Liga hat-tricks. (TW)"
2. 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "/* July 2016 */ re"
3. 21:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC) "/* July 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I tried to resolve the issue on User talk:Italia2006#July 2016. SLBedit (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We already went over this on the other admin page. Italia2006 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Severe DTS is in order, I think. You didn't get your way on the other page, so now you try this. @Qed237: Comments? Italia2006 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Italia2006: No matter how much you think your version is right (and frankly I agree with it), you have broken the three-revert rule. Do you realize this is blockable behaviour and that there are other more constructive ways of dealing with the dispute? Additionally your tone is far from acceptable — MusikAnimal 23:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

For a block to result from this situation is absolutely absurd. However, I normally have perfectly agreeable relations with my fellow editors and work cooperatively with many of them. As such I agree completely that my tone was incorrect and should not be tolerated. Italia2006 (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that an indirect apology? SLBedit (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Italia2006: A block to result from this is not absurd, it is procedural. What's absurd is to edit war over such a trivial change, even if you're version is "right", and this applies to both parties. I don't think a block is necessary if we can take this to the talk page, which hasn't been touched over 4 years. More importantly, civility is absolutely paramount and the contrary further validates the appropriateness of a block, that should be abundantly clear — MusikAnimal 00:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page for what? The article is FC Porto. What is there to discuss? He keeps reverting to an incorrect hyperlink, please explain how any discussion is required. Italia2006 (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is required because two editors are clearly at odds. You cannot keep reverting each other over and over. I agree "FC" makes sense because that's the target of the article, but "F.C." is indeed not broken. Therefore there's no reason to revert back to "F.C.", and there's no reason to correct "F.C." to "FC" (at least not for a fourth time in a row). If we can just stop than we don't need to discuss any further. If SLBedit feels this strongly about it, then that's what the talk page is for. You both have been Warned — MusikAnimal 00:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to stop, for my part. Italia2006 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This is nothing to edit war over. @SLBedit: This thread was completely unneccesary and you already took this discussion at WP:ANI before this. You should be very careful about forumshopping/adminshopping and WP:BOOMERANG. Keep discussion in one place. Qed237 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: You should be aware that SLBedit also went to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Italia2006. Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Tempus Loquendi reported by User:Grayfell (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Nazi gun control theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tempus Loquendi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Is this Goebbels himself undoing these edits? Are the quotations from Locke, Hitler and Gandhi not clearly cited enough for you? Are all facts and opinions that contradict your own automatically disregarded as "counterfactual"?"
2. 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "These edits are primarily factual. Many of them are direct quotes from Hitler himself, or from John Locke or Mahatma Gandhi. Any opinions are in response to the opinions of others."
3. 20:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730562674 by Anastrophe (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nazi gun control theory. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Account appears to have been created to continue edit war started by 184.155.110.2 Note personal attacks in edit summary, as well Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 20:50, 20:45, 20:42, 20:33. Was warned. Kuru (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Tagi aydin reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Khoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tagi aydin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC) to 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730571984 by Oktay karaduman (talk)"
   2. 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730572626 by Tagi aydin (talk)"
2. 21:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730569440 by Feinoha (talk)"
3. 21:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730568727 by Sro23 (talk)"
4. 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730568400 by Sro23 (talk)"
5. 21:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730567921 by Sro23 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Khoy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor has not engaged on the talk page or even in edit summaries. Comments left on other editors' pages suggest a competency issue (). In addition, it's likely the editor is socking with another account (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Oktay karaduman). clpo13_(talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Oktay karaduman. ~ Rob₁₃ 23:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:99.103.25.212 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Air France Flight 4590 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

99.103.25.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) "Spelling correction"
2. 06:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC) "spelling"
3. 05:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC) "Spelling correction"
4. 05:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 21:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "spelling"
6. 20:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Air France Flight 4590. (TW★TW)"
2. 05:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Air France Flight 4590 . (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violations of ENGVAR. Will not stop disruption. Dr. K. 06:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Clear violation after warning. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring